AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Bob Furry

MATH098 · MTHMTH · MATH160 · MATH176 · ENGR1205255 · MATH178 · MATH281 · MTH178 · MATH181 · STAT160 · MATH180 · MATH175 · STATS1463 · STATS · 35 lifetime ratings

AI rating
9/100
RMP rating
1.9/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
3.9

The decision

unless you are highly independent and can learn math from the textbook on your own.

Best fit · Self Taught ProSelf-teaching requiredHard testsPoor explanationsBoring lecturesAvoid strongly
  • Most reviews say students must teach themselves from the book because .
  • as hard, long, unfair, or poorly connected to instruction.
  • A few students liked him, but the .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

28/100

A few students earned As, but most comments say the class requires self-teaching and .

All evidence comes from in-person reviews, with .

Is the course easy?

Challenging

25/100

The math content becomes much harder because , and exams are difficult.

Only in-person reviews describe course difficulty.

Is attendance flexible?

Recommended

55/100

logistics, but several students say lectures are not worth staying for.

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

12/100

Students overwhelmingly advise avoiding him because , and .

All .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

18/100

, and unfair grading conditions.

Format shift

.

Workload

Heavy

28/100

The workload feels heavy because students must read, practice, and learn .

Format shift

All .

Teaching experience

Awful

18/100

Most comments describe poor explanations, low audibility, boring lectures, ignored questions, and reliance on the book.

Format shift

All .

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

85/100

Student complaints center on tests, chapters tested, partial credit, and .

Format shift

Only in-person reviews mention assessments.

Luni fit check

Weigh these signals against your actual schedule.

Get help balancing workload, grading, and timing when no option is an obvious fit.

Course format

Compare the in-person and online experience.

Classroom format

In person

35 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person reviews are strongly negative, repeatedly , and self-teaching.

Main concern

Students often say lectures do not prepare them and the .

What students said

“there is no way I would have learned anything from lecture.”
MATH160
“I'd advise buying the book just so that you can teach yourself the math.”
STAT160
“ !”
MATH180

Remote format

Online

0 reviews

Low confidence

No stored summary is available for this format.

Main concern

No main concern is stored for this format.

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Exams are described as hard and sometimes unfair, but reviews .

Hard TestsLong TestsLittle Partial CreditNote Card Mentioned

Assessment risk

Strict

22/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, and at least one note-card policy, but do not clearly prove proctoring rules.

Hard TestsLong TestsLittle Partial CreditNote Card Mentioned
“He barley gives partial credit!”
5255
“Tests long and super hard.”
STATS
“Tests on 6 chapters and allows 1 note card”
MTH178

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“I'd advise buying the book just so that you can teach yourself the math.”

Voice snapshots generated from 35 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and self-teaching. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

18/100

“Very .”

📚 Self-Teaching Burden

28/100

“there is no way I would have learned anything from lecture.”

📝

22/100

“Tests long and super hard.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • , just reads from the book.
  • .
  • Reads from the book, speaks low & quickly.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • This class was harder then led to believe and he makes it 10 times harder!
  • Very hard, but fair.
  • .

Theme 3

🚩 About Recommendation

  • !
  • !!!!!!
  • !

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

35

Recent reviews read by the AI

35

Lifetime ratings

86/100

Evidence confidence

Thirty-five reviews over many years show strong consistency around poor teaching and difficult exams, though some comments are old.

Inside 35 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 54
4 out of 52
3 out of 54
2 out of 58
1 out of 517

Course coverage

MATH16013 reviews
MATH1806 reviews
MATH1762 reviews
MATH1782 reviews
MATH2812 reviews
Show 10 more courses
52551 review
ENGR12052551 review
MATH0981 review
MATH1751 review
MATH1811 review
MTH1781 review
MTHMTH1 review
STAT1601 review
STATS1 review
STATS14631 review

Reported outcomes

No letter grade reported results lead the reported letter grades.

6 reported outcomes

A range

2

A 2

B range

0

No reported values

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

4

Not_Sure_Yet 3 · Rather_Not_Say 1